'The 80s Thruster!'

General Discussion
1

Howdy all!

After recently scoring the 80s flick ‘Amazing Surf Stories’ I took my 80s thruster out last weekend.

The waves- small, glassy, fun, a little on the week side but alot of beautifal rights.

The board- 5ft10’ 19’ 2 3/4’

The Result- alot of fun, I didn’t really feel that much of a difference in paddle power as I often surf a potato chip however I’m sure if it was a high tide day I would have felt it… BUT I did notice that once these boards took off they fly! you didn’t have too strugle on the wave’s like often on a chip.

I also got lots of compliments on how cool the board was…

The only thing that might have made them better is thinning down at the nose more but I didn’t actually feel the nose cathing cause I sortof pivot around my back foot.

Anyway: Could people post photos, descriptions, links, stories… whatever on 80s shortboards.

Josh.

Attached is my 80s Thruster.

PS… I’m also going to take it along with my potatoe chip with new fins (thanks chipfish) when the oldies finaly drive me too the beach.

2

hiya Josh !

So, where did you surf ? north steyne ?

I’ll try and dig up my 80’s thruster photos …I think I posted them on my first photo thread ? …"photos …share the stoke " , or “share the stoke…photos” , or something similar ??

If I can find the original photos , I think they should have the dimensions of most of these boards written on the back . Is that the sort of stuff you were after Josh ?

So , what board[s] will the fcs go on ? I noticed your 80’s thruster [like most then ] has glasson fins …

ben

3

Seems the '80’s tris were thicker, blockier, and slightly floatier than the new gen. But the pro surfers are calling for thinner and narrower, so the manufacturers push that trend, plus crowds are more prevelent, and anything that can handle more crowds is good for business.

See CI Flyers and Mongrels, and other’s similar from other companies.

I had a 1985 Rusty semi 7’6" x 19" that floated my skinny butt of 150 lbs. about Tits level with the water, board completely submerged!

My older 5’4" twins floated, paddled, and caught waves easier than that toothpick.

Be aware of dimensions…length, width, thickness, rail taper, and nose and tail widths.

4
Quote:

hiya Josh !

So, where did you surf ? north steyne ?

I’ll try and dig up my 80’s thruster photos …I think I posted them on my first photo thread ? …"photos …share the stoke " , or “share the stoke…photos” , or something similar ??

If I can find the original photos , I think they should have the dimensions of most of these boards written on the back . Is that the sort of stuff you were after Josh ?

So , what board[strike] will the fcs go on ? I noticed your 80’s thruster [like most then ] has glasson fins …

ben[/strike]

Hi!

Yeah! normally I surf ‘Hutchinsons’ (half way between Queensie and North styne) (called hutchinsons as when i first started surfing there directly across the rode was a big ‘hutchinsons’ building) But the flags were moved up the beach more and there was grommet wonderland just infront of the clubhouse south of the nothern most pipe.

I’ll have a look through the share the stoke thread, I just wanna discuss them really…

I’m using the fins on ‘Buzz’ the modern thruster/chip. I’ll let you know how they go.

Catchya later…

Josh.

5
Quote:

Seems the '80’s tris were thicker, blockier, and slightly floatier than the new gen.

Yeah actually when I was looking at mine floating round it reminded me of a new gen thruster cross ‘slab’ kneeboard…

6

Look here for some 80s shots…

http://forum.surfermag.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=587688&Main=582643

7

josh, George Orbelian wrote a book called Essential Surfing. It is available as a paperback for not so much $$$.

Anyway, in it, one very valuable thing George does is sample boards from many shapers of the time, and list their essential dimensions in a lot of detail. He has pics of the template and rocker, and measurements of rocker, foil thickness, and width every foot or so, and descriptions of bottom contour and rail shape. If you wanted to know something about thrusters in the early 80s, this book has detailed info on about 20 boards.

Of particular interest to me were that rockers were somewhat flatter than those today, running 1 7/8 - 2 1/4, and every thruster, except bonzers (I think there’s an Eaton in there) has 1/8 to 1/4 inch of Vee in the tail. Concaves were not a common feature of shortboards for a few years yet.

Fin positions are also a little different - using the stock 10 1/2 and 3 1/2 on all the boards. A lot of boards today come with side fins 11 or even 12".

Todays chips are built to generate speed on the smallest radius turns. It takes a lot of skill to be able to generate speed on them in a wide range of waves. The early 80s boards were more forgiving and a little harder to turn.

To the point - check out the book if you get a chance. The board specs are an amazingly valuable snapshot of the boards of the early 80s.

8

Essential Surfing is my bible, its falling apart from use. Wouldn’t it be great if the board design bit was updated. Perhaps we all could work togther to build similar specs for boards from '85 to date ? Maybe expand it a bit to include longboards & fish

Any takers ?

9
Quote:
Essential Surfing is my bible, its falling apart from use. Wouldn't it be great if the board design bit was updated. Perhaps we all could work togther to build similar specs for boards from '85 to date ? Maybe expand it a bit to include longboards & fish

Any takers ?

George asked me for feedback on Essential Surfing a few months ago, he is working on a followup. I told him if he made an enormous encyclopedia of boards organized by type and year it would be of immense value. I think he is working on it now, in addition to a book on the history of surfboard development.

More locally, it would be great if the board resources section at Swaylocks had a basic form that included the detailed specification info found in the book, and the same basic pictures of rocker and planshape. It grows continually, and would rapidly surpass any one person’s work in terms of scope and value. That’s sorta a limitation of the resources section here and at surfresearch. You can’t come close to re-creating a board without some info on rocker, bottom contour, rail shape, foil flow, etc, and a simple planshape photo with the length, max width, and max thickness, doesn’t get you close enough.

10

Thanks Blakestah! I’ll be sure to check it out!

11

My opinion is that I hate 80’s-style boards and am so happy we have evolved past them.

However, I understand why some people like them for some of the reasons covered here (paddle better, don’t have to work as hard to surf them well, etc.). Nothing against them or their boards of choice; it’s just not my trip to ride nor do they allow the performance that I like to witness. I’ve never seen an advanced surfer surf better on an 80’s vs. a modern high-performance tri (when the whole “retro 80’s” thing happed a few years ago, a number of truly talented local surfers jumped on the wagon and, in my opinion, their style and performance suffered).

This quote (from the thread-starting post) kinda summarizes my anti-80’s-style boards because, to me, it feels like the design limits performance to what you have described: "but I didn’t actually feel the nose cathing cause I sortof pivot around my back foot. "

IMO, I’d personally rather have to work a little harder and develop the skill to ride thinner-railed boards and be able to put them in and slice through the wave than be forced to only pivot around off the tail without engaging the foreward rail.

And I really enjoy the flow and agression the pros and top-notch local heroes exhibit on modern shortboards. While I am impressed at how the 80’s pros handled their craft, especially in waves of consequence, I can’t help but think how much harder they could be surfing and performing if they were not nursing their thick-railed boards by pivoting off the tail so much and trying to coax those buoyant rails to stay in the water long enough to bring the board back under control and do a neutral-railed recovery. NOTE: of course there are some super-freak exceptions to this- Tom Curren comes to mind, even though I like what he is currently doing on modern equipment more)

Sure those boards cover distance quickly and efficiently, but one it comes time to do business there are better tools in the box (once again, IMO).

If I want that thicker, floatier feel I’m on my “retro” fishes and mod-fishes. Those are my crutch boards when the waves are lacking. Anything chest high and over with a wall and I don’t want to be held back by having to fight the buoyancy of a thick rail.

But as I said, this is my personal opinion and personal choice, not to be held against anyone who chooses the nostalgic approach!

12

Well today there was some swell, 4-5ft slightly bigger on the sets.

Took out ‘the weapon’ again.

The Result: Caught some great ones earlier before it started closing out.

I noticed that it was harder to do full rap-around cutbacks then on a modern thruster.

But I found that the board handled speed GREATLY, It didn’t go so fast that one mistake would stuff up your wave but it kept fast and gave you time to set up your turns. great fun!

I found that u can put the board HARD on the rail when doing reos etc. which was also to my liking.

Very fun.

I think that these boards are the ultimate thruster high tide weapons.

Catchya Later,

Josh.

13

good on ya Josh !

…glad you’re enjoying it mate . And getting some good waves …did you do North Steyne again today ?

ben

14
Quote:

But as I said, this is my personal opinion and personal choice, not to be held against anyone who chooses the nostalgic approach!

Actually Hackeysaky, Whilst i didn’t have the same opinions as you I think that was a really good post!

Thanks 4 the time.

Josh.

15
Quote:

did you do North Steyne again today ?

ben

Nah it wasn’t really working, Quensie had the goods.

Josh.

16
Quote:
Quote:

But as I said, this is my personal opinion and personal choice, not to be held against anyone who chooses the nostalgic approach!

Actually Hackeysaky, Whilst i didn’t have the same opinions as you I think that was a really good post!

Thanks 4 the time.

Josh.

I guess for someone who didn’t ride the boards the first time around [ie Josh wasn’t born then] , it’s more curiousity as to how the boards went , than nostalgia , perhaps .

For us who lived through the eighties , it may resemble nostalgia if we ‘jump back on those boards’ again . [I sometimes do , just to remind myself of how they rode , and for a slightly different feel …]

After yesterday again watching Occy take apart Aussie Pipe on a [1984ish?] flat, widish, thickish , squaretailed thruster , in the dvd ‘ripping down walls’ , I must confess to wanting one in my quiver …

 ben
17

josh- I’m glad my post came off as intended- input offering a contrary opinion, but not a diatribe against the choices of another.

Chip- it’s always good to have a board like this in one’s quiver (I have 2 “vintage” 80’s boards in mine), if for nothing else some perspective on what came before. I find myself on mine once or twice a year for an hour or so, then I say “nah” and get back on one of my others. Personal opinion, personal choice.